Larry Klayman Sues New Times, Is Really Weird

"Birther" attorney and Sheriff Joe Arpaio fan Larry Klayman has filed a federal lawsuit against New Times and our Minneapolis sister paper, City Pages, claiming "defamation."

Klayman's lawsuit points to New Times and City Pages blog posts that cite an appellate court ruling from Ohio, a public record, affirming a magistrate judge's finding that Klayman "inappropriately touched" his own children.

As usual, Klayman -- who just days ago asked if the head of the group trying to recall Arpaio is a "homo" who "want[s] my nuts" -- got weird, declaring that New Times "promotes a perverse radical gay, lesbian, transgender sexual orientation lifestyle for children and others at home and in the workplace" -- whatever that even means.

Among other things, Klayman claims that yours truly and City Pages writer Aaron Rupar -- while misspelling both of our names -- "defamed him by accusing him of committing and/or being convicted of a crime . . ."

The issues raised by Klayman involve credibility assessments made by the magistrate. Klayman challenges these findings. The magistrate heard evidence from the children's pediatrician who reported allegations of sexual abuse to children services, and from a social worker at children services who found that sexual abuse was "indicated." Although the social worker's finding was later changed to "unsubstantiated" when Klayman appealed, the magistrate explained that the supervisor who changed the social worker's finding did not testify. The magistrate pointed out that he was obligated to make his own independent analysis based upon the parties and the evidence before him. In doing so, the magistrate found on more than one occasion [Klayman] act[ed] in a grossly inappropriate manner with the children. His conduct may not have been sexual in the sense that he intended to or did derive any sexual pleasure from it or that he intended his children would. That, however, does not mean that he did not engage in those acts or that his behavior was proper.

The magistrate further found it significant that although Klayman denied any allegations of sexual abuse, he never denied that he did not engage in inappropriate behavior with the children. The magistrate further found it notable that Klayman, "for all his breast beating about his innocence * * * [he] scrupulously avoided being questioned by anyone from [children services] or from the Sheriff's Department about the allegations," and that he refused to answer any questions, repeatedly invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, about whether he inappropriately touched the children. "Even more disturbing" to the magistrate was the fact that Klayman would not even answer the simple question regarding what he thought inappropriate touching was. The magistrate stated that he could draw an adverse inference from Klayman's decision not to testify to these matters because it was a civil proceeding, not criminal.

After reviewing the record, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in overruling Klayman's objections regarding the magistrate's finding that Klayman inappropriately touched the children.

However, Klayman says the magistrate was biased because "the magistrate is Jewish and resented that Klayman, who is Jewish, because Klayman also believes in Jesus Christ and considers himself a Jewish Christian."

However, an entire section of the appelate court's ruling explains that Klayman's accusations of bias were found to be bogus (paragraphs 18-22).

"[Phoenix New Times], and in addition to supporting and furthering the radical gay, lesbian and transgender agenda, has shown a malicious hatred for Sheriff Joe Arpaio based upon his strong enforcement of immigration laws and manufactured false charges that he has not 'prosecuted' cases of sexual abuse," Klayman's lawsuit says.

Um, okay. This, coming from someone who introduced a "birther" affidavit from Arpaio as evidence in an actual courtroom.

wait a minute.......so Larry is against posting personal info? and if you go to little Robert's site (JoeArpaioFan), Robert is on there complaining about it, yet he also has another article saying HE can post peoples personal info? better be careful Robert, a double edged sword cuts both ways you know. What is it going to be Robert? is it illegal and wronglike Joe and Larry are saying (which means you are breaking the law) or is it okay? and dont pull the old "you guys are doing it" routine, because if you do...... that means we can all commit all kinds of crimes just because other people are doing them too, and that means we dont need old sheriff Joe.

Aaah poor babies, are you being sued???? GOOD!!!! And I see you're trying to fight back with lies but guess what, you're gonna lose. You'll be found guilty of slander and libel so you better whip out your checkbook and be ready to pay up.

I am really really sure no self respecting "homo" wants his "nuts"....yep 100% on that...joe better gag this mad hatter soon, he cant afford this kinda press ole bloat is getting to be pretty weak sauce, should be goin away any time now, thanks larry this helps a little more....

well maybe things wouldnt be so bad for old Larry if he could just suppress his urges to touch children inappropriately. dont get mad because people are on to your sick ways Larry. Pay your bills, stop crying and leave children alone. its not defamation of character if you have none.

@oscaroscaroscar On a side note, did you see the news report that our federal government has/is spending some $400,000 to study duck penises? Seems to me all they would have to do is visit a local county shurf and they would see the sorriest penis of all.

@WhoKnows so the gist of the letter is that only illegals are doing these crimes???? someone better explain that to all the white guys, black guys, asian guys, indian guys and everyone else in prison. and if you also notice he doesnt mention anything about sex crimes being a problem either. (probably because he knows where Brewers son is locked up, and that Klaymans kids are in a different state than Larry is)